The bottom line is that there is no 'obvious' measure of commercial value! Where do we start? BA does not get any commercial value from your flying AA or QF or CX so should they not credit this? They can't because they are in an alliance so BA-only TPs are not an option although a 'minimum' is possible. Should spending be taken into account? Frankly it would be equally silly - Mr A who spends £400 every fortnight on a rock bottom sale-priced LHR-LAX probably costs BA money while Mrs B who "only" spends £300 every fortnight on a relatively expensive (they can get worse than that!) LHR-MAN is clearly partipating in BA's profitability every time she puts a foot on a plane. But then it gets even more complex than that. Someone who takes a flight every week, regardless of the fare they pay themselves will implicitly improve the cost of every other seat on the plane through yield. Someone who flies BA for 10 years is more valuable than someone who flies them only for a year. Someone who flies routes on which BA find it hard to sell their seats is conceivably more useful than someone who occupies a seat the airline would sell anyway, someone who 'chooses' BA is worth pleasing more than someone who doesn't have a choice (because BA has monopoly of a route, an exclusive corporate contract, etc), someone who is an opinion leader and bring in 10 more customers through their good words is worth more than someone who just flies and shut up, etc.

There is never any perfect way of measuring commercial worth. All of them oversimplify and approximate complex realities, put on a same footing people with very different flying patterns and commercial values, and can be questionned. All in all, I do not think that TPs are worse than average nor, for that matter, that status is easier to get on BA than on, say, other major OW airlines. Like others, this reminds me of all those others "I earn 1970 TPs a year so qualification below 1950 is a joke "